Oliver North

[Reality]

Once again for the slow. Oliver North did not say Reagan did it cause Reagan DIDN"T do it.

You guys really think the President of the US would confide in and depend on a Lt. Col. To do those things?

Marines adapt and over come. He did what a Marine always does, he accomplished his mission the best way he could. Even Admiral Poindexter said Reagan was not involved in the process.

I like how one is innocent till proven guilty unless they are a Republican.

Remind me again how Clinton is innocent of the things he was accused of out of Arkansas but Reagan is guilty of something everyone says he did not do. Lame as hell. But to be expected from you partisan hacks.

Listen to who is calling people hacks you fucking lightweight. Clinton got his dick sucked, Regan sold weapons to reps of the regime in Tehran while they were holding Americans prisoner and funneled that money to nothing less than an international terrorist organization. But you continue to compare the two things as if they are in the same fucking ballpark if you like. It just makes you look stupid.

Yea, the right wing god had something going on under his roof that he didn't know about. That must have been why H.W. pardoned them all... because they weren't doing to administration's bidding. Must be a family trait: see Libby.

 

[Reality]

People I like? Like who? Tell me one "freedom fighter" group that I like, again? I don't particularly agree with any armed movement that seeks to topple a democratically elected government. Do you?

The contras were UNIVERSALLY condemned by every single international human rights organization in Nicaragua in the 1980s. They were absolutely brutal. Tell me ONE reason why the Contras weren't terrorists bu Al-Qaeda is? That they didn't blow up a building in the US? That YOUR government supported them? They were the lowest possible scum to grace this sub-continent, they murdered, pillaged, plundered, rampant torture, raped women and children, assassinated government functionaries and religious leaders. And to establish what? Another Somozista regime? The sandinistas might've been bumbling idiots and ended up being corrupt as well, but never on any level CONCIEVABLY comparable to Tacho and Tachito, who repressed and murdered who knows how many people in their 50 year militarist dictatorial reign, and robbed Nicaragua to the point of perpetual underdevelopment. These are some sick people you're trying to defend, Sargeant.

Not to mention that Nicaragua tried to go to every relevant international body and make its case for peace. Every time, except when the US used its veto in the security council, every body sided with Nicaragua's case. In Regan's great respect for law and international legitimacy, he told every body to fuck themselves. Thats the perfect guy for the nationalist wing to worship.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Listen to who is calling people hacks you fucking lightweight. Clinton got his dick sucked, Regan sold weapons to reps of the regime in Tehran while they were holding Americans prisoner and funneled that money to nothing less than an international terrorist organization. But you continue to compare the two things as if they are in the same fucking ballpark if you like. It just makes you look stupid.

Yea, the right wing god had something going on under his roof that he didn't know about. That must have been why H.W. pardoned them all... because they weren't doing to administration's bidding. Must be a family trait: see Libby.

Clinton was suspected of selling favors in ARkansas, his wife made 100,000 on a 1000 dollar investment in months. She got hired by and paid by a group that was lobbying for changes in the State and guess what? The Governor supported those changes. He was suspected of taking money from China during his reelection campaign and guess what? He removed restriction on Chinese trade and even gave them high tech information and material.

Clinton has a history of dead people that knew too much.

But hey you go ahead and pretend the sex thing was the only thing.

Again retard, if Reagan is guilty because you say so and no evidence, then Clinton is guilty of a lot worse things cause I say so.

The EVIDENCE and the FACTS be damned, you do not care one whit that none of what you claimed was ever proven and in fact people UNDER OATH testified Reagan had nothing to do with it. Partisan hack indeed.

 

[Care4all]

From what i can tell from my recent readings....Reagan may not have known, but his vp sure did, george h w bush....

 

[Care4all]

Clinton was suspected of selling favors in ARkansas, his wife made 100,000 on a 1000 dollar investment in months. She got hired by and paid by a group that was lobbying for changes in the State and guess what? The Governor supported those changes. He was suspected of taking money from China during his reelection campaign and guess what? He removed restriction on Chinese trade and even gave them high tech information and material.

Clinton has a history of dead people that knew too much.

But hey you go ahead and pretend the sex thing was the only thing.

Again retard, if Reagan is guilty because you say so and no evidence, then Clinton is guilty of a lot worse things cause I say so.

The EVIDENCE and the FACTS be damned, you do not care one whit that none of what you claimed was ever proven and in fact people UNDER OATH testified Reagan had nothing to do with it. Partisan hack indeed.

There is no evidence of a crime being committed or the repubs would have NAILED clinton with all those things you supposedly know he and hillary did that were illegal.

Either way, you add up all of your speculations of what he criminally did and the Iran Contra Affair under Reagan/Bush and you THINK that what Clinton did was WORSE than what Bush 1 did in Iran Contra? AMAZING how your mind works, or doesn't....? lol

Care

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Bah, your focus is totally off. Who's defending Clinton? The guy's probably among the top 5 biggest War Criminals alive, and not because of any of those things, which are petty by comparison.

Clinton's crimes range from ad hoc bombings to boycotts and sanctions designed to starve into submission, to support of ethnic cleansing in brutal counterinsurgency warfare, and to aggression and devastation by bombing designed to return rogues to the stone age and keep them there.

On June 26, 1993, Clinton bombed Baghdad in retaliation for an alleged but unproven Iraq plot to assassinate former President George Bush. Eight Iraqi civilians, including the distinguished Iraqi artist Layla al-Attar were killed in the raid, and 12 more were wounded. This kind of unilateral action in response to an unproven charge is a violation of international law. The legal excuse given by U.S. officials, which they relied on in justification of the bombing of Libya in 1986, is the right to self defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. But that Article requires that the response be to an immediate threat to the retaliating party, clearly not the case, and therefore a legal fraud. This was a crime-petty by the usual U.S. standard-but still a crime. And it had the further repellent feature that it was done almost surely for purely internal political reasons-to show Clinton's toughness, despite his Vietnam War record, and to countervail right-wing attacks on his lack of militancy.

The same point can be made as regards his 1998 bombing of Afghanistan and the Sudan. Unknown numbers were killed in Afghanistan (and by the missiles that accidentally landed in Pakistan), and the pharmaceutical factory destroyed in the Sudan was the major source of medical drugs in that poor country. All evidence points to the fact that the Sudan factory destroyed had no connection whatever to chemical weapons or Bin Laden, and was bombed on the basis of insufficient and poorly evaluated data. But following the attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa, Clinton felt compelled to act for internal political reasons once again, and there are no international constraints or costs to him or his country if he chooses to bomb small and weak countries to score political points at home. This was rogue and criminal behavior.

Clinton has given unstinting support to Turkey in its war against its indigenous Kurds. He has also escalated his aid to Colombia. In both of these countries the civilian casualties from counterinsurgency warfare and death squad operations during the Clinton years has exceeded the pre-NATO bombing deaths in Kosovo by a large factor.

In the Clinton years these recurrent U.S. policies have impacted heavily on Cuba and most dramatically on Iraq. The tightening of the embargo on Cuba under the Toricelli-Helms bill, signed into law and enforced by Clinton, which banned the sale of U.S. food and curtailed access to water treatment chemicals and medicines, took a heavy toll. According to a 1997 report of the American Association of World Health, the food sale ban "has contributed to serious nutritional deficits, particularly among pregnant women, leading to an increase in low birth-weight babies. In addition, food shortages were linked to a devastating outbreak of neuropathy numbering in the tens of thousands. By one estimate, daily caloric intake dropped 33 percent between 1989 and 1993." The decisive offsetting consideration, however, was that Clinton was able to preserve some of his political support from the powerful Cuban lobby in Florida.

The most monumental of Clinton's war crimes, however, has been his policy of sanctions on Iraq, supplemented by the maintenance of intense satellite surveillance and regular bombing attacks that have often resulted in civilian casualties. UNICEF reports that in 1999 more than 1 million Iraqi children under 5 were suffering from chronic malnutrition, and some 4,000-5,000 children are dying per month beyond normal death rates from the combination of malnutrition and disease. Death from disease was greatly increased by the shortage of potable water and medicines, that has led to a 20-fold increase in malaria (among other ailments). This vicious sanctions system, causing a creeping extermination of a people, has already caused more than a million excess deaths, and it is claimed by John and Karl Mueller that Clinton's "sanctions of mass destruction" have caused "the deaths of more people in Iraq than have been slain by all so-called weapons of mass destruction [nuclear and chemical] throughout all history" (Foreign Affairs, May/June 1999). U.S. mainstream reporters, who have so eagerly followed the distress of the Kosovo Albanians, somehow never get to Iraq for pictures of the thousands of malnourished children.

One of the notable features of the NATO-U. S. war against Yugoslavia was the gradual extension of targeting to civilian infrastructure and civilian facilities-therefore civilians who would be in houses, hospitals, schools, trains, factories, power stations, and broadcasting facilities. Two months after the war was over, the BBC "revealed" that the attack on Yugoslav television on April 23 was part of an escalation of NATO bombing whereby the target list was extended to non-military objectives; NATO was "taking off the gloves." According to Yugoslav authorities, 60 percent of NATO targets were civilian, including 33 hospitals and 344 schools, as well as 144 major industrial plants and a large petro-chemical plant whose bombing caused a pollution catastrophe. John Pilger noted that the list of civilian targets included "housing estates, hotels, libraries, youth centres, theatres, museums, churches and 14th century monasteries on the World Heritage list. Farms have been bombed and their crops set afire."

 

[Care4all]

Bah, your focus is totally off. Who's defending Clinton? The guy's probably among the top 5 biggest War Criminals alive, and not because of any of those things, which are petty by comparison.

link please

Also, your article pastes clinton with something that happened in the late 1980's and early 1990's, BEFORE clinton was President but WHILE ghwBush was president????

What's with that?

the food sale ban "has contributed to serious nutritional deficits, particularly among pregnant women, leading to an increase in low birth-weight babies. In addition, food shortages were linked to a devastating outbreak of neuropathy numbering in the tens of thousands. By one estimate, daily caloric intake dropped 33 percent between 1989 and 1993."

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Sorry mate, I was talking to the Sargeant.

The article is by Edward Herman, professor emeritus at the Wharton School in UPenn, and he goes around with a lot of War Crimes from different administrations, but focusing on the Clinton one. I was just trying to get the Sarge to come up with something better than "Partisan Hacks".

Here, the link, if you're interested (kinda crappy looking, he's got books on the stuff, though):

War Crimes Clinton Is The WorId's Leading Active War Criminal

 

[Care4all]

Sorry mate, I was talking to the Sargeant.

The article is by Edward Herman, professor emeritus at the Wharton School in UPenn, and he goes around with a lot of War Crimes from different administrations, but focusing on the Clinton one. I was just trying to get the Sarge to come up with something better than "Partisan Hacks".

Here, the link, if you're interested (kinda crappy looking, he's got books on the stuff, though):

War Crimes Clinton Is The WorId's Leading Active War Criminal

ty E Delta!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sorry mate, I was talking to the Sargeant.

The article is by Edward Herman, professor emeritus at the Wharton School in UPenn, and he goes around with a lot of War Crimes from different administrations, but focusing on the Clinton one. I was just trying to get the Sarge to come up with something better than "Partisan Hacks".

Here, the link, if you're interested (kinda crappy looking, he's got books on the stuff, though):

War Crimes Clinton Is The WorId's Leading Active War Criminal

Clinton is "innocent" cause no one found EVIDENCE. But Reagan is guilty because NO ONE found EVIDENCE? You sir are quite clearly a partisan hack. There is NO evidence Reagan knew about or approved the sale or the supposed diversion of funds. As you say, if there were, why wasn't he tried or Impeached? Ohh wait, I forgot a Republican is guilty because there is NO evidence. Sorry I forgot how your twisted littel partisan game goes.

I am going to start calling you Epi the dip shit if you keep calling me sarge by the way.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Clinton is innocent of what? Jesus Christ, you are so "partisan" that you can't even see that I'm calling Clinton a dirty war criminal. Find some other example, Sargeant. *Salute!*

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Clinton is innocent of what? Jesus Christ, you are so "partisan" that you can't even see that I'm calling Clinton a dirty war criminal. Find some other example, Sargeant. *Salute!*

Clinton was suspected of lots of things, murder, taking bribes and collecting money illegally from the Chinese for several, another would be selling pardons and his wife took money for politics also. Yet the Liberals all insist they are innocent cause it was never proven, meanwhile claiming even though there is NO evidence Reagan knew about Iran Contra he is guilty.

Got it now Epsi-dipshit? Again for the slow GySgt not Sgt.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Clinton was suspected of lots of things, murder, taking bribes and collecting money illegally from the Chinese for several, another would be selling pardons and his wife took money for politics also. Yet the Liberals all insist they are innocent cause it was never proven, meanwhile claiming even though there is NO evidence Reagan knew about Iran Contra he is guilty.

Got it now Epsi-dipshit? Again for the slow GySgt not Sgt.

Wow, one shouldn't call anyone slow or dipshit after posting that. Did you even comprehend that Epsilon was agreeing with you on Clinton???

Ollie North is a criminal. There is no way that his actions can be considered LAWFUL under the Boland Amendment. Whether you personally agree with the Boland Amendment or not, he circumvented a law passed through Democratic means, regardless of how many Clinton red herrings you throw into the discussion.

 

[Care4all]

Clinton was suspected of lots of things, murder, taking bribes and collecting money illegally from the Chinese for several, another would be selling pardons and his wife took money for politics also. Yet the Liberals all insist they are innocent cause it was never proven, meanwhile claiming even though there is NO evidence Reagan knew about Iran Contra he is guilty.

Got it now Epsi-dipshit? Again for the slow GySgt not Sgt.

I don't think Reagan is guilty, but i DO THINK that his vice president was possibly guilty...and was calling the shots....ghw bush.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wow, one shouldn't call anyone slow or dipshit after posting that. Did you even comprehend that Epsilon was agreeing with you on Clinton???

Ollie North is a criminal. There is no way that his actions can be considered LAWFUL under the Boland Amendment. Whether you personally agree with the Boland Amendment or not, he circumvented a law passed through Democratic means, regardless of how many Clinton red herrings you throw into the discussion.

But Reagan is NOT, which is what Epsilon and other Liberals claim.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't think Reagan is guilty, but i DO THINK that his vice president was possibly guilty...and was calling the shots....ghw bush.

No evidence of that either.

 

[Reality]

Clinton was suspected of selling favors in ARkansas, his wife made 100,000 on a 1000 dollar investment in months. She got hired by and paid by a group that was lobbying for changes in the State and guess what? The Governor supported those changes. He was suspected of taking money from China during his reelection campaign and guess what? He removed restriction on Chinese trade and even gave them high tech information and material.

Now you are onto something... I have no use for the man, for the record.

Again retard, if Reagan is guilty because you say so and no evidence, then Clinton is guilty of a lot worse things cause I say so.

Why the comparative analysis? Did North work for Clinton, since North is the subject of this thread?

The EVIDENCE and the FACTS be damned, you do not care one whit that none of what you claimed was ever proven and in fact people UNDER OATH testified Reagan had nothing to do with it. Partisan hack indeed.

That, sir, or retard (whatever you prefer) is called plausible deniability. It would have worked for Nixon had he not taped everything.

NO President doesn't have control of his house. Every president is responsible for everything that happens under his roof. End of story.

 

[Gunny]

Was it morally correct gunny? i don't know much about the iran contra affair...

Care

Because of teh Iran Hostage Crisis, we did not have diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, Ayatollah had sway with whichever (I don't recall which) sect was holding some American hostages.

Unyielding bureaucracy dictated that the US government not deal with the government of Iran on an international and public level. You have to bear in mind that if the US casts its eyes upon you, you have international legitimacy.

The US also has a policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists, or for hostages.

We also had a moritorium against dealing in weapons with Iran. So, we used the the Nicaraguan Contra's as middlemen to exchange weapons for hostages.

Dealing with kidnappers is political suicide, but weigh that against the lives of the hostages. Then figure out how you reconcile one with the other. Saving lives is morally correct, IMO. Saving face is not.

However, I DO recognize the fact that if we deal with just ONE kidnapper, it opens the dorr for every knucklehead with a gun who wants to make a fast buck.

Congress was not after North. They wanted Poindexter, Weinberger and Reagan himself. The Dems going after Reagan as they did led directly to Clinton's impeachment, and the over-villification of Bush.

I can't wait to see how the ante is upped this time.

 

[Gunny]

dude, AGAIN, mobster patsies who refuse to roll over on their bosses could use the same excuse. Oliver North is exactly why justice in the US looks better in a textbook then it does in application. He is not required to uphold UNLAWFUL orders, eh? I mean, i've never been in the military but if your commanding officer told you to kill his neighbor would you be bound to do it? As far as MORALLY correct... well, thats a political opinion that Che Guevera could have laughed at.

Fortunately, I do not pattern ANY of my thoughts after Che Guevera. Morally correct is not the political opinion. It is a moral opinion devoid of politics.

Is it morally right to make a deal for the lives of hostages? Yes.

Is it politically wrong to make a deal for the lives of hostages. Yes.

In light of the latter, the means to accomplishing the former is restricted solely to the back door.

 

[Gunny]

His motive was pure? He shielded the real criminal, the commander in chief, who NEGOTIATED WITH TERRORISTS holding Americans hostage and compensated them for their actions by selling them weapons and funneling the money to an international terrorist organization making most of its money by trafficking cocaine into the United States. But then again, Regan had a love of international terrorists so this is not surprising. What is surprising is that anyone would give these criminals the benefit of the doubt. Its kind of like when bin Laden was helping kill Russians... he and people like him got the benefit of the doubt.

You know something the rest of us don't? No evidence has EVER been presented that Reagan was involved in any way. This is the United States. DO try to keep in mind that innocent until proven guilty is not a right selectively endowed based on partisan politics.